Friday, November 26, 2010

That's "Veto" from April 8, 2007. Dems were in charge of Congress and Bully Boy was bandying the word veto.

On another note, I did not set out to take two weeks off from doing comics at TCI. I usually do one each Sunday. I have been doing my new comics for the community newsletters the last two weeks but I have had no new comic at TCI.

That was C.I.'s decision. We had long, long hours on Third Estate Sunday Review -- which produced very little that could be used -- and she told me the first Sunday, "You're off." The second one she benched me again.

I don't say that in a "She's mean! I wanted to do it!" way.

I'm glad she benched me. I will work less with Third in the future. It's too much work and it's too little to show for it. (Not griping at them, just noting that reality.) I'll help with Highlights this weekend and I don't know what else but I won't work on all the pieces. And I do plan to have a comic up at TCI this Sunday night.

Friday, November 26, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US government stands accused of aiding a group they've designated as a "terrorist organization," Rome prays for Iraqi Christiains while other countries work to expell them, Thug Nouri 'officially' is named prime minister designate, and more.

Today violence continues in Iraq and let's start there.

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing which injured three people, a second which injured six and 2 Tikrit roadside bombing which claimed 3 lives and left twenty-two people injured. Yesterday Reuters noted a Samarra roadside bombing which injured "police officer Nabeel Abbas Ashraf, head of the Huwaish police station, and two of his body guards," 2 Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing which injured two children and four Iraqi soldiers, another Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing which injured a police officer, a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded three people (including one Iraqi soldier) and a Baaj grenade attack claimed the life of 1 tailor.

The Iraq War is not about oil many insist. Then why is human life worth so damn little to the press? Hammoudi reports on it, Reuters reports on it. That's really it. Contrast that with the oil tanker -- OIL tanker -- exploding. Alsumaria TV reports it was "an accident," that it claimed 2 lives with nine more wounded and the explosion took palce "on the Iraqi-Jordan border" yesterday. CNN covers itReuters covers it.. AP covers it. Press TV covers it. Bloomberg News covers it. AFP covers it. BBC News covers it. We can go on and on but I believe the point is made. It's not the 'numbers' because 2 (or 3 lives -- on is misisng in some reports, in others the person is listed as dead) and nine injured is less than 4 killed and thirty-one injured. But one gets massive attention. And then some wonder why people -- like Alan Greenspan? -- say the Iraq War was all about oil?

It certainly wasn't about creating a democracy. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, nineteen days and counting. Yesterday, Thursday November 25th, Nouri was finally 'officially' named prime minister-designate. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) explains, "In 30 days, he is to present his cabinet to parliament or lose the nomination." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) adds, "Even if Mr. Maliki meets the 30-day deadline in late December -- which is not a certainty, given the chronic disregard for legal deadlines in Iraqi politics -- the country will have spent more than nine months under a caretaker government without a functioning legislature. Many of Iraq's most critical needs -- from basic services to investment -- have remained unaddressed throughout the impasse." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) offered, "He has an extremely difficult task ahed of him, these next 30 days are going to be a very tough sell for all of these parties that all want something very important in this government. It took a record eight months to actually come up with this coalition, but now what al-Maliki has to do is put all those people in the competing positins that backed him into slots in the government and he has a month to day that from today."

Thug Nouri brokered a deal with -- among others -- Moqtada al-Sadr to remain as dictator of Iraq. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports, "The Mahdi Army has also in effect seized control of cellblocks at one of Iraq's largest detention facilities, Taji prison. Within months of the U.S. hand-over of the prison in March, Mahdi Army detainees were giving orders to guards who were either loyal to or intimidated by them, Iraqi and U.S. officials say [. . .] Senior Sadr supporters are being brought into the Interior Ministry at high-level positions, according to Mahdi Army members and Iraqi officers. One Sadr commander who is being given the rank of brigadier general said he knew of 50 others who were being recruited for officers' positions." And if there's anything more frightening than the current Iraq prison system it's grasping that the Mahdi Army is more or less in charge of some of them. Paul Walsh (Minneapolis Star Tribune) reports that the Minnesota National Guard is sending 80 members to Iraq and the question should be why?

The government in Iraq is nothing but exiles installed by the US. It's not a real government, it's not of the people -- easily demonstrated when the people's voice was rejected this month. So why is the US military being used to prop up this corrupt regime? And when does it end?

The 'government' lacks the consent of the governed. So to keep these exiles in place, the US military will have to stay on the ground in Iraq for years to come?

Condemning the recent attacks on Christian communities in Iraq, Parliament calls on EU High representative Catherine Ashton to treat the problem of the safety of Christians within Iraqi borders as a priority and urges the Iraqi authorities to "drastically increase their efforts for the protection of Christian and vulnerable communities". MEPs also call on the European Union to strengthen the fight against terrorism.

Iraqi Christians have been targeted throughout the illegal war. The latest wave of attacks began October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad in which at least 70 people were killed and at least 70 were injured. Adnkronos reports that 7 hand written threats against Iraqi Christians have turned up throughout Baghdad this week and they quote "Christian community leader" Abdullah al-Nawafili stating, "Threats of these types have been coming in over the past few days that push us to leave the country." Vatican Radio reports that Cardinal Leonardo Sandri delivered a liturgy last night at St Peter's Bascilica in Rome and called for "peace and reconciliation":

Survivors from that terrible tragedy, who since November 11th have been receiving treatment in Rome's Gemelli hospital, were also present Thursday. They were the physical testimony of the wounds that the Iraqi Christian community has suffered and continues to suffer, for the faith. Speaking to them Cardinal Sandri spoke of the saving mystery of martyrdom."Our thoughts, hearts and prayers go to Iraq and many other parts of the world, where to this day loyalty to baptism is answered in blood, for He who loved us to the Cross."

The targeting of various minorities in Iraq has led to the region's largest refugee crisis in years. Jennifer Macey (Australia's ABC) reports on Salah Azuhari, a Mandaean who fears persecution should Australia force him to return to Iraq. Guess what happened in Iraq? The Mehdi militia and Badr militia attacked his family. ABC's Hana Vieva translated his story, "He and his family were tortured, his family was bombed. His uncle received a nail to his head. So they basically bashed a nail through his brain. He was susequently kidnapped, tortured and put around dead bodies, other dead bodies." Salah, like other Iraqi refugees seeking asylum around the world, has no idea whether or not he will be granted santuary. The British government plans to keep deporting but human rights don't matter in the United Kingdom, apparently. Rosalind English (UK Human Rights Blog) notes one road bloc to the government's plan to deport:

Now the European Court of Human Rights has informed the UK government that it would apply "Rule 39″ to any Iraqi challenging their deportation. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court means, in effect, that anyone from Iraq who takes their case to the European Court will automatically be allowed to remain in the UK, at least temporarily. Rule 39 is the enforcing mechanism whereby the obligation in Article 34 not to interfere with an individual's effective exercise of the right to submit and pursue a complaint before the Court confers upon an applicant a right of a procedural nature – which can be asserted in Convention proceedings – this is distinguishable from the substantive rights set out under the Convention.

In other words, failure to comply with an interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court could give rise to a violation of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for instance, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 470, ECHR 2005-III).86. In practice the Court applies Rule 39 only if there is an imminent risk of irreparable damage. While there is no specific provision in the Convention concerning the domains in which Rule 39 will apply, requests for its application usually concern the right to life (Article 2), the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment (Article 3) and, exceptionally, the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) or other rights guaranteed by the Convention. The vast majority of cases in which interim measures have been indicated concern deportation and extradition proceedings.

Meanwhile, The Local reports that Sweden plans to continue deporting Iraqi refugees. Reporters get targeted in Iraq as well. Al Baghdadiya earned Nouri's ire when they broadcast about the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church. He immediately declared them in league with the attackers and shut them down. Ammar Karim (AFP) reports today that Al Baghdadiya has pulled out of Iraq, issuing a statement which includes: "Given the persistent desire of the prime minister to prevent Al Baghdadiya from working in Iraq, the management of the channel has decided to close its bureaus in the country. We are sorry to have had to take this deicison, but we believe that efforts to block the people from expressing their views and daily suffering will not stop Al Baghdadiya from fighting for freedom of the press, the investigation of corruption and freedom of opinion." This is at least the third TV station Nouri has banned -- Zawra was banned in 2006 and Al Sharqiyah in 2007.

When not cracking down on the press, Nouri likes to plan assaults on minority communities. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports that the European Union is calling for the US to remove the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK) from their "list of terrorist organizations." The MEK is a group of Iranian dissidents who sought shelter in Iraq for decades. After the US-led invasion, the US military provided protection for the group which is hosed at Camp Ashraf. The US got 'promises' from the 'government' of Nouri al-Maliki that the residents of Camp Ashraf would be safe and turned control over to him at the start of 2009. In July 2009, Nouri launched an assault on the camp in which at least 11 people were killed and at least four hundred were injured. When the assault took place, Amnesty International issued the following statement:

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC STATEMENT AI Index: MDE 14/021/2009 28 July 2009 Iraq: Camp Ashraf residents attacked Amnesty International is seriously concerned at today's attacks by Iraqi forces on unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf which left several people injured and led to the arrest of at least eight others. Hundreds of armed Iraqi security forces are said to have stormed the camp, north of Baghdad, at around 3pm local time. They used tear gas, water canons and batons against unarmed Iranian residents who tried to stop them from entering the camp. Video footage seen by Amnesty International clearly shows Iraqi forces beating people repeatedly on different parts of the body, including the head. Dozens of people are said to have been injured. Two of them, Reza Chelcheraqi and Mohammad-Reza Shahsavandi, are believed to be in serious condition. At least eight people, including Hasan Besharati, Humayoun Deyhim, Gholam Reza Behrouzi, Hosein Fili, Mehdi Zareh and Naser Nour Ebadian, were arrested and their current whereabouts are unknown.In the last few months the Iraqi government has publicly stated that it wants to take over full control of Camp Ashraf, in Diyala governorate, north of Baghdad. On 27 July government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh told an Iraqi satellite television channel that the government "will take over the responsibility of internal security affairs of Camp Ashraf". The authorities are reportedly planning to establish a police outpost inside the camp. Amnesty International calls on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent excessive use of force by Iraqi security forces. The government should reveal the whereabouts of the eight people detained and ensure that they are protected from torture or other ill-treatment, as well as from forcible return to Iran. Background Around 3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf are members or supporters of the People's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition organization whose members have been resident in Iraq for many years. Until recently the PMOI was listed as a "terrorist" organization by the European Union and other governments, but in most cases this designation has now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran.The US forces provided protection for the camp and its residents, who were designated as "protected persons" following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but this situation was discontinued following the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi governments, although the SOFA makes no reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents. Public Document **************************************** For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.orgInternational Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org

Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) observed of the assault, "The American-installed government in Iraq has shown its true colours. By fighting its way into an Iraqi camp of Iranian dissidents, possibly killing 11 people in the process, it has earned brownie points in Iran. American disapproved, but its diplomatic internvention was limited to medical assistance." US forces were present. They watched as Nouri's thugs terrorized the camp. They stood and watched. They are there to protect the installed 'government' of Nouri. They are not present for the people.

From the MEK to the PKK. Throughout the Iraq War, the White House has insisted (whether occupied by Bully Boy Bush or by Barack Obama) that the PKK was a terrorist group and that the government or 'government' in Baghdad had the full support of the US in clamping down on the PKK. For nearly five years, the US has shared information from surveilance drones with Baghdad in the alleged effort to curtail the PKK. The PKK is a group housed in the southern part of Turkey and 'hidden' in the northern mountains of Iraq which fights for a Kurdish homeland. It may also turn out to be a US-backed group. Press TV provides this background on the PKK: "The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization by much of the international community, including Turkey, Iran and the European Union member states. More than 40,000 people have lost their lives in PKK attacks. The PKK terrorists launch their attacks mainly from Iraq's Qandil mountain range in the areas under the control of Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani. Tel Aviv and Israeli companies are also reported to support Kurdish terrorists in the Qandil mountain range."

Jill Dougherty (CNN)quotes one-time US Ambassador James F. Collins insisting, "Leaking information of this kind will be detrimental to building the trust among officials necessary to conduct effective and productive diplomacy."

They're arguing, grasp this, that evidence -- eye witness testimony, forensics, etc -- is actually a bad thing because without it criminals could 'build trust' in their neighborhoods.

Exposing the crime is not the crime. And it's ridiculous and pathetic that anyone wants to argue that -- Collins remains on the government payroll via Carnegie Endowment. If the US actions were/are embarrassing, that's due to the US actions, not due to later leaking of the actions.

Do not confuse the crime with the exposure. And do not fall for the bulls**t flying out of the mouths of people who apparently should be behind bars themselves since they have so little respect for the laws they once swore to uphold.

Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) notes, "The London-based daily al-Hayat reported that WikiLeaks is planning to release files that show Turkey has helped al-Qaeda in Iraq - and that the United States has helped the PKK, a Kurdish rebel organization. The documents reportedly suggest that the United States has supported the PKK, which has been waging a separatist war against Turkey since 1984 and has been classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization since 1979." Jason Koutsoukis (Sydney Morning Herald) adds, "A report in The Jerusalem Post said the US military documents referred to the PKK as 'warriors for freedom and Turkish citizens' and said the US had set free arrested PKK members in Iraq. The documents also say US forces in Iraq have given weapons to the PKK." Aras Coskuntuncel and Sevil Kucukkosum (Hurriyet Daily News) report:

Reports speculate that the leaked diplomatic cables will show that Washington aided the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and that Turkey helped al-Qaeda in Iraq. Anxiety mounted Friday as the United States contacted its allies through its embassies in an attempt to brace for the release of what could amount to millions of documents.U.S. officials briefed counterparts in Ankara about some documents WikiLeaks will publish that relate to Turkey, Turkish Foreign Ministry officials told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Friday.

Which would mean, if true, that -- domestically -- that Eric Holder should immediately order the arrests of George W. Bush and Barack Obama for proving material aid and support to terrorists. Isn't that what they keep doing to US citizens who are not in fact supporting terrorists? But the US government is? If they are, they need to be behind bars.

I guess if I were a criminal about to be exposed to the world I'd probably try to distract by whining "Unfair! Unfair!" as well. But apparently, I have little more respect for the laws than those elected who take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Shashank Bengali (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "this morning, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, Jim Jeffrey, called WikiLeaks 'an absolutely awful impediment to my business, which is to be able to have discussions in confidence with people'." Once was a time someone mouthing the words Jeffrey has would be someone considered unsuitable for diplomatic service or service to the country -- such is the lowered standards of the times we live in that he will most likely not even be called out by the press.

Thursday, November 18, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, stronger analysts (including The Economist) weigh in on Iraq's political issues, Iraqi Christians continue to be targeted, Military Families Against the War calls for all US troops to be brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the whores of Beggar Media continue to avoid realites that would make them call out the War Hawk in the White House, and more.

"Iraq Is a Democracy." In theory, but it doesn't work like one. Yes, it has had three, free national elections and a constitutional referendum and there are elements of democracy. I started covering Iraq in 1998, living there from the start of the war until late 2009, and it certainly feels freer than before. Saddam Hussein held his last election, a plebiscite in 2002, and claimed 100 percent of the vote (and maybe it was true -- who would risk voting against him?). Under the old regime, even when I could slip away from government minders, people were usually too scared of informants among their family and friends to speak openly. You weren't even allowed to keep your mouth shut. Failure to join the chanting crowds at pro-government rallies -- watched closely by neighborhood-level Baathists -- could cost you your job, admission to university, or worse. Now there's lots of open talk, government criticism, and widespread Internet access.

But Iraq is not democratic in a reliable or deep sense, where people can expect equal rights, legal protections, or access to their leaders. Free speech is still a dangerous pursuit. At least seven reporters or their staff have been killed this year in what appear to be direct attacks on news agencies, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Most others are afraid to get too specific in their criticisms of the leadership. Regulations are tightening, and the track record of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has just maneuvered himself into another term in office, is getting darker. The government has started requiring that news agencies register their staff and equipment. Media regulations ban quotations from anonymous sources. Human Rights Watch recently documented government efforts to ban public demonstrations and encourage security forces to violently disperse attempts at peaceful protest.

Some people, like Kaplow, claim three national elections. We don't. There was the 2005 elections (December 2005) and there was the March elections this year which were national elections. The way they're getting three is they're counting the 2009 elections which were provincial elections. Could they be considered "national elections"?

Most of the time a national election takes place on a set date. Whereas the 2009 provincial elections were held on two different dates, months apart. The KRG voted on their own and were not part of that. January 31, 2009 was election day for 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. The KRG held their elections July 25, 2009. And Kirkuk wasn't allowed to hold elections -- which is why only 17 of 18 provinces held elections in 2009. In addition, if we were going to count those, it would be four elections because January 30, 2005 saw governorate council elections. National elections, for our purposes here, were the December 2005 and March 2010 parliamentary elections. Only the parliamentary elections result in the creation of a national government so we only count the two parliamentary elections as "national elections" here. Others can count as they want.

Let's stay with the most recent elections. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, eleven days and counting.

David Romano (Rudaw) offers his take on the power-sharing arrangements, "A Sunni Iraqiya parliamentarian, Osama Al Nujaifi, became Speaker instead. The Kurds remain weary of Al Nujaifi and his penchant for strident Arab nationalism, reminding them a bit too much of yesterday's Ba'athist discourse. Nujaifi will likely remain a fierce opponent of most of the Kurdistan Bloc's aspirations in the new government. Meanwhile, something clearly had to be done to placate Allawi, so a new 'National Security Council' was created for him to lead. The only problem is that no one seems to know what powers, if any, this new National Security Council will have. Muqtada Al Sadr's group of parliamentarians is also entering this new government, despite their bitterness towards Maliki for the offensive against them in 2008 as well as their abiding distrust of the Iraqiya bloc. They will want some important portfolios which no one trusts them enough to give them. Nuri al Maliki, once again, isn't particularly liked by any of the other groups, but somehow he has managed to engineer his resurrection as Prime Minister for another term. Finally, virtually all the other parties remain deeply suspicious of Kurdish aspirations, especially fearing that implementation of Article 140 could set the stage for eventual Kurdish secession from Iraq." The Economist emphasizes a number of issues -- including the Kurdish issues, "Mr Maliki has agreed to nearly all of the 19 demands made by the Kurds, including a commitment to hold a referendum on who should control the disputed city of Kirkuk. Mr Maliki is also said to have promised some powerful ministries to a Shia group led by a populist anti-Western cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr." Writing today, The Economist also grasps what few other outlets can:

A new government has not yet been born.

Why The Economist has the ability to grasp that and so many others don't is puzzling but credit goes to them for noting reality in their opinion piece when most pieces passing for reporting from news outlets continually hail the 'new' 'government'.

On the issue of the National Security Council, Alsumaria TV reports, "State of Law Coalition senior official Hassan Al Sunaid stated that the political parties have started the legislation of a special law for the national policy council which will play a major advisory role in shaping Iraq's future policies, he said." Bernard Gwertzman (Council on Foreign Relations) interviews Charles W. Dunne (NSC during the previous Bush administration) about the developments. Gwertzman notes of the power-sharing deal, "Allawi is supposed to have an important policymaking role, says Dunne, although it remains to be seen whether Maliki keeps his word and whether the Obama administration will press him to do so." Excerpt.

Bernard Gwertzman: A key question is how important this new National Council for Higher Strategic Policies that Allawi is supposed to head, will be, right?

Charles W. Dunne: This council has not yet been enshrined in Iraqi law. There is a school of thought that believes there will need to be a constitutional amendment to make it serve as an effective check on the prime minister's power. This is all going to be very contentious and the outcome is very uncertain, which is probably one of the reasons why Allawi said, before he departed for London, that the power-sharing deal is dead. In addition, there are very different views among the Iraqi political leadershipr about how this council should function. Maliki clearly sees it as an advisory body, whose advice he can ignore. Allawi and a number of his supporters see it as a venue in which national security decisions by the prime minister, and important economic decisions, can be altered or veteoed. Even if legislation has passed to create a fairly robust council, the concept of this council as it exists right now will require 80 percent consensus within the council in order to implement a decision, which in this political system -- as in any political system -- is going to be difficult.

At Foreign Policy, David Bender offers an analysis of the deal that sees the new council and other efforts themselves as being of little value and noting that the council -- under Allawi or another Iraiqya member -- is not going to have grand powers:

But formally changing the chain of command in Iraq would require a highly unlikely constitutional change, and it seems unlikely that Maliki will ultimately agree to a significant reduction in his powers. He has argued that the new council will function as an advisory panel with no independent authority. If Allawi decides he is powerless in his new position, he could resign and become a forceful leader of the opposition.

Between an unclear Iraqiya role, an uncomfortably large Sadrist contingent, rising Kurdish demands, and no unity of purpose among any of the political groups, the prospects for the next government are not great. But the overall situation in Iraq will probably improve anyway. The next government isn't going to resolve much of Iraq's deep social and political dysfunction, but having it in place will finally allow the oil sector, budget, and infrastructure projects to begin to move ahead.

Was it worth the eight (soon to be nine) month wait? No.

But is it a good thing that there's likely to be a government by the new year? Absolutely.

Meanwhile Currency Newshound reports that the Ministry of Planning declared today that 10 times the current allocation of the investment budget is needed to address issues of operations such as government salaries and the rations card system. Shashank Bengali (McClatchy Newspapers' Middle East Diary) crunches other numbers -- the latest Brookings Institution figures for Iraq -- and notes, among other things, that Iraq is "on track to exceed the 2009 death total of 3,000". Bengali picks many interesting figures. Some he doesn't note include that landlines are down in Iraq as compared to the middle of 2004 -- this may be partly due to the large increase in cellular phones (and there was no cell phone industry prior to the start of the Iraq War according to Brookings). The report finds that an estimated 20,000 Iraqi medical doctors have left the country since the start of the war and only 1,525 of that number have returned -- so (check my math) 18,475 doctors have left and not returned. In addition, 2,000 Iraqi medical doctors have been killed since the start of the Iraq War. So the Iraq War has resulted in the country losing an estimated 20,475 doctors. The most recent estimate finds approximately 16,000 medical doctors remain in Iraq. CIA estimates put the Iraqi population at between 26 and 30 million. Check my math but that should put the number of doctors at 0.053% of the population. The median age in Iraq is 20.6 years-old. In 2008, the official unemployment rate in Iraq was 15.2%. Though there are no figures for this year, there's been no improvement and that official figure is much lower than the actual unemployment figure (the CIA notes that the unofficial estimate is 30%). But in 2009, a number of Iraqis were surveyed and asked if they thought unemployment would improve in 2010? 37% hoped it would "fall slightly" or "fall a lot," 35% thought it would increase -- slightly or a lot) and 24% expected it would remain the same.

Turning to some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes a roadside bombing outside Baiji wounded one Sahwa leader while clashes at Baghdad's al-Tasfirat prison left twenty prisoners injured. Xinhua reports 2 Baquba bombings targeted Sahwa today with Firas Ahmed being killed in one and two other people being killed in the second one.

At Answers For The Faith, Dr. D. explains, "Tuesday a six-year-old girl and her Christian father were killed by a car bomb in Mosul. On Monday in Mosul, gunmen barged into a home and killed two Christian men in their living room. Today on Wednesday the bullet-riddled body of a 20-year-old Christian student was found on a street also in Mosul."

Natasha Dado (Arab American News via New America Media) reports on last week's rally in Detroit to protest the targeting of Iraqi Christians and quotes Patrick Lossia stating, "As a result of the U.S. occupying Iraq, its Christian population has declined from three percent to one percent. If America never invaded Iraq in 2003, we would have stabilization. We're almost less than one percent of the minority in Iraq, but we're the ones dying the most. I didn't like Saddam Hussein, but it's a fact Iraq was safer under his regime." October 31st, Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was attacked, over 70 people died, over 70 were wounded. Among the dead were two priests, one of which was shot in the back of his head "execution style." That event began the latest wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians.

Leila Fadel and Ali al-Qeisy (Washington Post) report, "The names of the dead are pasted on the floor in the center of the church and surrounded by lighted candles. But the window glass is missing, destroyed by blasts and gunfire, and craters dot the ground - all reminders of the four suicide bombers who carried out the deadly attack along with other gunmen." The response to the latest wave of attacks is no different from earlier responses: many Iraqi Christians attempt to relocate within and outside of Iraq. The government response? When the issue receives global attention, Iraqi politicians make a few public statments and nothing more is done. This has especially been the pattern since Nouri al-Maliki was installed as prime minister in 2006. Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes the Syrian Catholic Archbishop Basile Georges Casmoussa of Mosul stating, "In terms of declarations, we are really saturated. What we are asking for are concrete actions. We must find a solution, solutions, effective ways to safeguard the security of Christians." Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports that Iraqi president Jalal Talabani is whining over France's offer of asylum to victims of the October 31st attacks and their families and saying that Iraqi Christians are welcome in the KRG. But they're not always safe in the KRG. And they don't have all the bodyguards that Jalal does, do they? Jalal is one of the two types of stupid on display of late. The first is someone basically in Iraq but well protected who has a hissy that another nation might offer asylum to the defenseless persecuted. The second is the Iraqi Christian who has fled Iraq at some point and is now safely in another land (often a citizen of that land) and who insists that Iraqi Christians must stay in Iraq. The Detroit rally was made a joke by one of the leaders of the rally insisting that Iraqi Christians must remain in Iraq. The very obvious point is that that leader didn't remain in Iraq nor has he taken it upon himself to go back to Iraq. It's easy to call for someone to make what could be a last stand while you're safe elsewhere.

The latest wave of attacks is one in a series of ongoing attacks. Iraqi Christians have not been protected throughout the war. Anyone who feels they need to leave should have all the resources and support needed. Anyone who feels they want to stay should be encouraged and the Iraqi government should be offering them all the resources and support they need. But what shouldn't happen is for other people to be making the decisions for them. This is life or death and it will be blood on someone's hands if they attempt to make the decision for Iraqi Christians. Repeating, there is something highly offensive about an American-Iraqi who wants Iraqi Christians to remain in Iraq while he sits his happy little ass safe in Detroit. If what he now advocates had been done to him and his family, he'd still be in Iraq. That no one involved in planning the rally saw that rank hypocrisy is rather telling. (As was his cries that the US military must remain in Iraq for years to protect Iraqi Christians. The targeting is not an excuse to continue the illegal war.)

Kevin Menz (The Sheaf) reports on a Saskatoon protest against the violence and quotes Peter Kiryakos stating, "It's genocide, essentially. The Christian people, since the war began, have had no protection and have been targeted by terrorist groups wanting them out of the country." If it's genocide, it's criminal to suggest that Iraqi Christians should be forced to stay in Iraq. (Repeating, some may want to leave, some may want to stay. That is for them to decide and governments world should open their borders to those who make the decision to leave.)

As of November 2010, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lead to:• the deaths of over 5,787 American service members• the deaths of tens of thousands of Afghani and Iraqi civilians• over 2,000 suicides of American veterans• over 40,000 injuries to American service members

In financial costs:• It costs $1 million to keep one soldier on the ground in Afghanistan for one year.• The operational costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already surpassed $1 trillion.• The total projected costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is $4 trillion, including an estimated $1 trillion to provide care for returning veterans.

These wars are not making us safer. They are betraying the values that lead many of our young men and women to volunteer for their country and are ransoming the futures of this generation and the next. These funds should be used to take care of the troops when they come home, rebuild our economy, and protect our communities.

Enough is enough! Bring our troops and our tax dollars home NOW!

Action is needed to end the wars. A lot of people are willfully deluding themselves, keeping their heads in the sand, refusing to call out War Hawk Barack.

"Doesn't matter what he encourages as long as he's got style." Who knew Carole was a prophet? Barack's encouraged war, encouraged drone attacks and so much more. But so many are so damn scared to call the Christ-child out. Supposed life-long peace activists tremble in fear at the notion of pointing out that the emperor sports no peace symbols. They better grow the hell up pretty damn quick because they're not just being played for fools, they're risking lives around the world as they avoid calling out the War Hawk in the White House. This week, Gareth Porter (Dissident Voice) breaks new ground with his monumental scoop detailing how the White House has actively been working to decieve the US voters into believing the Iraq War would end when, in fact, it would not. NSC-er Puneet Talwar was dispatched to offer Iraq 15,000 US troops after the end of 2011 'withdrawal' and to explain that the would simply shove these 15,000 under the US Embassy to hide the remainders. As we've noted for months, Nouri got US-backing to remain prime minister because he promised to allow US forces to remain in Iraq past 2011. From Gareth Porter's article:

The Iraqis also asked whether the 15,000 regular combat troops could be augmented with Special Operations Forces, according to the Iraqi official's account. Talwar said the additional deployment of SOF troops after the withdrawal deadline would be possible, because the United States had never publicly acknowledged the presence of SOF units in Iraq.

The Pentagon signaled last summer that it was assuming the post-2011 U.S. military presence in Iraq would be less than 20,000 troops. In a press briefing last August, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East, Colin Kahl, said Iraq "is not going to need tens of thousands of [American] forces".

Talwar also told the Iraqis that any deployment of combat troops in Iraq beyond the termination date of the U.S.-Iraqi agreement would require a letter from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Iraqi officials said the letter would be sent.

How many times do you have to be lied to before you wake the hell up? How many lies can you stomach in order to avoid keeping your membership in the Cult of St. Barack?

Philip J. Crowley: Well, we have a Status of Forces Agreement and a strategic framework. The Status of Forces Agreement expires at the end of next year, and we are working towards complete fulfillment of that Status of Forces Agreement, which would include the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of next year. The nature of our partnership beyond next year will have to be negotiated. On the civilian side, we are committed to Iraq over the long term. We will have civilians there continuing to work with the government on a range of areas – economic development, rule of law, civil society, and so forth. But to the extent that Iraq desires to have an ongoing military-to-military relationship with the United States in the future, that would have to be negotiated. And that would be something that I would expect a new government to consider. [. . .] Should Iraq wish to continue the kind of military partnership that we currently have with Iraq, we're open to have that discussion.

That should have sent off alarm signals immediately. Yet despite this being declared a press briefing at the US State Dept, Amy Goodman couldn't cover it. Of course, she used Barack's inaugaration to raise funds for her program Democracy Now! To raise big funds for her program -- or maybe you think it's normal to CHARGE $1,000 for a ticket when you're so-called 'independent media'? That's what she did. "For a donation of $1000, you can join this extraordinary celebration" insisted Goodman in her reach-in-your-pockets e-mail (entitled "Last Tickets for 1/20 Inaugural Peace Ball & VIP Reception" and sent out January 8, 2009 at 8:55 pm). This is the woman who makes millions -- in fact, Pacfica Radio would have a lot less economic problems if they still owned Goodman's program but she bullied, blustered and blackmailed in order to get ownership of it. Why? It's not like it does anything unless you need to hear what's going on in Aspen at the conference she and her program used to criticize but now Amy speaks at. She's feathered her nest very well and yet continues to beg non-stop. Pacifica is paying far too much for her middle-of-the-road Charlie Rose style program. And her whoring for the White House knows no end. In a functioning independent media -- as opposed to the Beggar Media we've had for the last years -- Goodman would have been called out for all of her whoring.

She whored and she continues to whore. (Which is why the WikiLeaks revelations were actually ignored on her program. She provided a distraction, she just avoided providing an actual service -- i.e. explaining to her audience that treaties were broken when the current White House turned over prisoners to suspected and/or known torturers.) Her program is useless and until her audience starts demanding accountability, they're not going to see any change. In the meantime, it's past time Pacifica made clear to her that she already has ownership of that program, they're not also going to fork over millions to air it.

People ask: "Where's the peace movement? Why did it flounder?" It floundered because whores in Beggar Media whored to get Barack in the White House and all this time later they still can't take accountability. Hearing the ridiculous Larry Bensky try to pontificate on KPFA two weeks ago about ethical standards was hilarious. Not only is he a sexist pig, he's also the cheating whore who booked a TWO HOUR 'analysis' of a Barack-Hillary debate and booked only people who had endorsed Barack and 'forgot' to inform people of that. He allowed them to present as 'independent' 'analysists' and they were in no hurry to tell KPFA audiences that they'd endorsed Barack. That's how you rig the analysis, that's how you ruin and destroy open debate and free speech. So it needs to be made very clear to Larry Bensky that his tired and whoring ass isn't a respected voice and he can't claim the high ground until he can take accountability for his whoring. For reasons, never clear to me, Howard Zinn decided to whore in the last five months of 2008. Howard Zinn died. For many of us, all his words about elections and politicians were rendered meaningless when he hopped on the Barack Obama wagon. He destroyed his own legacy and you'd think some of the other whores would look at that and think, "Damn, I better take accountability now before my whoring becomes my legacy." But thinking has never been Beggar Media's strong suit.

For those who missed Crowley's remarks, another administration figure soon spoke up. From the November 9th snapshot:

Anne Gearan (AP) breaks the news this morning that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated publicly today in Kuala Lumpur that the US military may stay in Iraq beyond 2011. She quotes him stating, "We're ready to have that discussion if and when they want to raise it with us." Donna Miles (Defense Dept's press department) adds, "But Gates said he wouldn't expect such a request, at least until the Iraqis have selected a president, prime minister and speaker of the council of representatives and made ministerial-level appointments."

Beggar Media's Cult of St. Barack better find its comfort zone to critique Barack from or they better start embracing these illegal wars because their silence allows these wars to continue. Finally, last month, we noted:

Another Times' journalist who has moved on from Iraq is Joao Silva. His photographs have illustrated (and often saved) many a Times' article filed in Iraq -- for example, in the Let's-Meet-The-Awakenings nonsense of 2007, it was Silva's photographs that told the larger truths. Today, the New York Times reports at their blog, Silva -- who has been covering Afghanistan -- was injured after stepping on a land mine.

J.J. Sutherland (NPR) reports this evening, "Joao Silva is the legendary New York Times photographer who stepped on a land mine last month in Afghanistan. He lost both legs among a host of other injuries. Amazingly. because of the incredible battlefield medicine available these days, he's going to live. And like most soldiers in his condition he's ended up at Walter Reed. "

Thursday, November 11, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the political stalemate ends when Iraq has a prime minister and as of today the political stalemate continues, Iraqiya walks out of Parliament, Jalal Talabani becomes the 'new' president of Iraq, and more.

Yesterday's death toll in the latest attacks on Iraqi Christians in Baghdad has risen to five and there are over thirty said to have been left injured. Vatican Radio reported on the violence and Chris Altier interviewed Monsignor Philip Najim, the Apostolic Procurator for the Chaldean Church in Rome.

Msgr Philip Najim: They are practically taking any hope from the mind of Iraqi population and they are telling them, "Leave the country and go out." And this is also, I'm telling you, yes, it is against the Christian people, there is a persecution. They are attacked because [they are] a minority in the country. But at the same time, you know, they [assailants] are attacking the Muslim people. So the whole Iraqi community, the whole Iraqi population is targeted. The whole thing depends on the responsibility of the goverment, the front of protecting the people, protecting the society.

Chris Altieri: What is your impression of the sensitivity, the awareness of the international community, to the plight of Christians?

Msgr Philip Najim: This is, I think, the duty of the international community: To protect not only the Christian community in Iraq, not only the whole population in Iraq, but also the humanity everywhere because if we are only talking about the terrorism in Iraq, this terrorism in Iraq, this integralism, it's going to be spread in the whole area and it will be very difficult to control it. So the international community, it has to interfere, the [United Nations] Security Councilhas to interfere, you know, to put an end to these attacks and to this integralism.

As Christians converged on their churches Wednesday to seek counsel from their religious leaders, the capital's Syrian Catholic archbishop made an emotional appeal for Western countries to come to their rescue."It would be criminal on the part of the international community not to take care of the security of the Christians," said Athanase Matti Shaba Matoka as he tried to console members of the Baghdad cathedral's congregation."Everybody is scared," he told reporters. "People are asking who is going to protect them, how are they going to stay on in Iraq. We are trying to encourage them to stay patient."

Gerald Butt (Church Times) notes, "The intensification of violence directed against Christians, believed to be the work of the al-Qaeda-backed group Islamic State of Iraq, raises concerns that a co-ordinated campaign by militants has begun to intimidate the remaining members of the already-diminishing Chris­tian community into fleeing. Secur­ity at churches has been increased, but protecting whole neighbour­hoods is much more of a challenge." Alice Fordham (USA Today) reports:

Human Rights Watch says the number of Christians in Iraq had fallen to about 675,000 in 2008 from 1 million at the time of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The Catholic Church in Iraq says there are 1.5 million Christians in Iraq, 1 million fewer than 2003.

Many Christians who remain in Iraq are leaving their homes behind for safer areas like the Kurdish-held north. Others have left the country entirely, going to Syria, Jordan or Egypt.

Emma Hovasapien, 50, a Christian who works near Our Lady of Salvation, said that her neighbors have begun selling their furniture. She spent five years abroad but had struggled to find work and came back this year to find an Iraq worse than she had left it.

"This is my country, but how long can we hold on, that is the question," she said.

Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani is declaring Iraqi Christians are welcome in the KRG: "I want to let them know that the Kurdistan Region is open to them. If they want to come, we will protect them and provide them with all services. We are extremely sorry for the crimes they have been subjected to and we condemn these criminal acts, they are innocent people and a precious part of this nation." Meanwhile Mike Hammer issued the following statement:

The United States strongly condemns the recent terrorist attacks in Iraq, which were perpetrated by Al Qaida in Iraq against Christians in Baghdad in their homes and in their churches. We also strongly condemn additional attacks against innocent civilians throughout Iraq, to include pilgrims in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. We offer sincerest condolences to the families of the victims and to all the people of Iraq who are targeted by terrorism. We remain steadfast in our commitment to stand with the Iraqi people as they reject violence and resist efforts by Al Qaida in Iraq to spark sectarian tension during this critical period in which Iraqis are forming their next government. We pledge our support to the Government of Iraq as it takes all necessary steps to combat terrorism and intensify its efforts to protect all Iraqis citizens, including vulnerable religious minorities.

Gerard Araud: As you know, the horrendous attack against the church of Our Lady of Salvation has created a lot of emotion in the French government, but also in the French public opinion. Let us be clear: any victim of terror deserves our attention, and any terrorist attack deserves utter condemnation. What is at stake with the attack against the Iraqi Christians is the deliberate will to destroy the Christian community there. Defending the Christians of Iraq is not only a moral and ethical choice, it is also a political necessity because when terrorists, Al-Qaida, are plotting to destroy the Christian community in Iraq, it is simply trying to attack the diversity and pluralism of the Iraqi society, which means the Iraqi democracy. The Christians in Iraq are on the front line of the fight for democracy and France wanted the Security Council to express its solidarity with the Iraqi Christians, which means with all the Iraqis and with the Iraqi democracy.

Q: On a related matter, what is France's view of the request by the government of Iraq for the extension of immunity to the Development Fund for of Iraq ...?

Gerard Araud: We are going to discuss that now. I think we will be able to answer this question later on

Q: [Christians in Egypt, Western Sahara]

Gerard Araud: On the first question, we were focusing on Iraq. We were raising the issue of the Al Qaeda fight against the Iraqi Christians. On Western Sahara, there is a briefing which is due on the 23rd of November. There were some discussions that since we have had the talks between the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the other side in Greentree, this briefing could take place earlier... but it is up to the presidency of the Security Council to see with Mr. Christopher Ross if the agenda allows it. It is a question of agenda. And as you know next week is a pretty busy week, there is one day off and there is also the debate about Sudan, and the retreat of the Security Council. It is an agenda problem, it is not a political issue.

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's eight months and three days and still counting.

Baghdad, Iraq (KRP.org) - Iraq's political leaders yesterday agreed to hold the parliamentary session as scheduled on Thursday and to name an individual for the post of Speaker of the the parliament (Council of Representatives). The Speaker post will go to the Al-Iraqiya bloc, which is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi. During the meeting, which was attended by the leaders of all the winning blocs at President Masoud Barzani's Baghdad headquarters, agreement was reached on two other points: to create a council for strategic policy and to address issues regarding national reconciliation. President Barzani, who sponsored the three days' round of meetings, stated that today's agreement was a big achievement for Iraqis. He expressed optimism that the next government will be formed soon and that it will be inclusive and representative of all of Iraq's communities.

Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports one hiccup in the process today involved Ayad Allawi who US President Barack Obama phoned asking/pleading that he accept the deal because "his rejection of post would be a vote of no confidence". Ben Lando, Sam Dagher and Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) confirm the phone call via two sources and state Allawi will take the post -- newly created -- of chair of the National Council On Higher Policy: "Mr. Obama, in his phone call to Mr. Allawi on Thursday, promised to throw U.S. weight behind the process and guarantee that the council would retain meaningful and legal power, according to the two officials with knowledge of the phone call." So all is well and good and . . . Ooops!!!! Lando, Dagher and Coker file an update, Iraqiya wasn't happy and walked out of the session. Prashant Rao (AFP) reports that "a dispute erupted in the Council of Representatives chamber when the mostly Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc argued that the agreement they had signed on to was not being honoured, prompting the bloc's MPs to storm out. [. . .] Specifically, Iraqiya had called for three of their lawmakers, barred for their alleged ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath party, to be reinstated before voting for a president." As The Economist noted earlier today, "An actual government is not yet in place; last-minute hiccups may yet occur." AP notes, "A parliament vote on the government could still take several weeks, as the factions work out the details of who gets what posts." According to Suadad al-Salhy and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters), the Parliament today elected Jalal Talabani to the presidency, voted Osama al-Nujaifi Speaker and "Talabani then nominated Maliki to form a new government." They had to vote, first, on Speaker. That was al-Nujaifi and the two deputies -- Qusay al-Suhail and Aref Tayfoor. Nujaifi or Nejefi or Najafi is the brother of Nineveh Province Governor Atheel Nejefi who is part of al-Hadba Party. Following his 2009 election, he declared that they did not need the help of the Kurds in the province -- not for security, not for political partnership and that the borders being in question didn't mean they were for the Kurds to design (he's openly hostile to the Kurds and described as an Arab nationalist). He was the one leading one side of the repeated 2009 stand-offs over Mosul. In June of 2009, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) observed:

In Iraq, everybody is paranoid and everybody has a reason to be so. In Nineeh, the capital of which is Mosul, the Sunni anti-Kurdish party al-Hadba won the provincial election in January and took over the local council. The Kurds are refusing to retreat from territory where they are in the majoirty. Last month the new al-Hadba governor of Nineveh, Atheel al-Najafi, accompanied by some 50 police cars, tried to enter a Kurdish-held part of his province, and was turned back by Kurdish forces. They said they had received orders, though everybody denies issuing them, "to shoot to kill" if he persisted. Had they done so there would have been general slaughter.

In 2008, Sam Dagher (then with the New York Times) reported that Nouri had given support to Atheel al-Nujaifi -- apparently due to shared sentiments regarding the Kurds -- and also noted that Atheel was "a prominent businessman who owns a ranch in Mosul that once supplied purebred Arabian horses to Mr. Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay.

The New York Times' John Leland, Jack Healy and Steven Lee Myers report the Speaker was elected and "With the diminished numbers [following Iraqiya's walkout], however, there were not enough votes to give Mr. Talabani the required two-thirds majority on the first round. A second round of voting, requiring only a simple majority, was to follow." Mohammed Tawfeeq Jomana Karadsheh and Arwa Damon (CNN) report that Talabani was elected and named Nouri prime minister-delegate at which point the session ended with the plan to reconvene on Saturday. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports has Talabani winning -- in the second round -- 199 votes and Talabani then declaring, "I ask Nouri al-Maliki to form the next government as his is the candidate of the largest bloc, according to the constitution."

Arwa Damon: Now the Iraqiya list won the highest number of seats following those inconclusive March elections. It is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi, it's cross-sectarian and it also received the backing of most of Iraq's Sunni Arabs.

MCEVERS: Probably not. I mean the power always rests with the top man in Iraq, and that man is still the prime minister, who is Nouri al-Maliki. The key difference in this government is in this particular election cycle, actually, is that a Sunni bloc, called the Iraqiya Party, actually took the most votes in the election. But despite that, they were unable to form a coalition with other parties to then get a majority of seats in the parliament. So even though they took the most votes, they're actually in third place.

INSKEEP: So what happens to the guy who was the head of that Sunni group, Ayad Allawi?

MCEVERS: Well, he was vying for a top post. I mean he, you know, claiming all along, you know, I took the most votes in the election, I should be the prime minister. Then when it looked like that wasn't going to work out, he and his American supporters were really pushing for him to take the presidency. But the Kurds wouldn't budge on that. The Kurds have long held the presidency and it's a point of prestige for them. Allawi's case is an interesting one. You know, here's a secular guy - he's actually a Shiite - who has the support of nearly all of the country's Sunnis. The Americans and Iraq Sunni neighbors, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, had really hoped that he could take some top position to sort of maintain the balance of power between Sunnis and Shiites and, you know, to keep the country from lurching back into sectarian unrest.

McEvers is correct that Allawi is a Shi'ite. But Iraqiya is not "Sunni." State Of Law is Shi'ite. But Iraqiya is cross-sectarian or non-sectarian (both terms have been used). A group of lawmakers came together to form the party and the did so on the basis of non-sectarianism. Far more serious errors took place on Democracy Now! yesterday where foundatin baby Nir Rosen was allowed to pontificate at length and traveled the globe unfettered by gravity or facts. Rosen declared that Nouri has "the support of some countries in the region." The region may just be Iran for Nir, but Iran's actually in the minority. And, no, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey were not pulling for Nouri. As Bushra Juhi (AP) observes of the reported deal, "The deal reached late Wednesday reflects a significant victory for neighboring Iran, which had pushed for al-Maliki's return." See Elaine's "What they actually know is much less" for more and also wonder why an Arab region is being 'expertized' by Nir Rosen when there are plenty of Arabs available.

Nouri wasn't supposed to be nominated today -- they were supposed to wait until near the end of the month, after a holiday -- so Talabani's decision to push through and nominate him today most likely goes to alarm and worry over the walkout and fear that the entire agreement could fall apart. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes:

Iraqiya members seem now to be quite up in arms about the deal, having realized that all Allawi has actually gotten was a promise for a really long name plate at his seat in parliament. The bloc says if Allawi's position doesn't get some defined powers within the next month it will bolt from the fledgling coalition. As other officials have suggested the new government won't be finalized for 30 days, this could mean another seemingly done deal will collapse before a government can be seated.

Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) sees the stalemate over. Wrong. The issue that caused the bottleneck was the who would be prime minister. That issue is not yet resolved. Nouri has 30 days to try to move from prime minister-delegate to prime minister. If and when he does make that move, the stalemate ends.

Some attention is going to the concessions Iraqiya was asking for -- except for Speaker, none appear to have been met (wow, more broken promises from Barack). Namo Abdulla (Rudaw) states, "The Kurds say they support Maliki because he has agreed to most Kurdish demands including the implementation of Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution that determines the fate of the oil-rich regions like Kirkuk, whether they should be under the jurisdiction of the central government in Baghdad or join Kurdistan." That's important all by itself but it's especially important when Iraqiya is already pissed off.

Iraq has no prime minister. We're going to continue with the stalemate continues until the country has a prime minister. Nouri is the delegate, the prime minister delegate. When Jalal Talabani named him delegate today, the clock began ticking. He has thirty days to create a cabinet. Nouri needed every one of those days last time -- after boasting that he'd be done ahead of thirty days. Nouri can't afford to piss off anyone this time and it appears he's already pissed off Iraqiya which has the power right now to see to it that he is either renamed prime minister-designate in 30 days or someone else is. But let's stay with the Kurds. They want the oil rich Kirkuk. Baghdad also wants to control it. It is disputed territory and a heated topic. Years ago, a census was supposed to have been held -- mandated for 2007 per the country's Constitution -- and Nouri, prime minister then, played kick the can, kick the can. Most recently he had set a date of October 2010. Possibly he thought the wrangling from the March elections would be over by then? He kicked that back to the start of December. Back to December 5th. If it's not held by December 5th? Will Kurds see it as a betrayal and decide they should throw their support to someone else? If it does take place, will Shi'ite support for Nouri -- tentative at best -- collapse? December 5th is within the 30 days.

Nouri could pick ministers quickly -- and reported has bargained most of the posts away already with the US especially pleased by the Ministry of Oil post. But -- check the Constitution -- it's not that easy. Ministers not only have to be approved by Parliament, Parliament can change their mind -- at any time -- on a Minister. Let's stay with that latter part because that demonstrates the power everyone else holds should they feel double-crossed. Sa'ad Jafarri (made up name) is nominated to be the Minister of the Interior. Nouri's well on his way to creating a cabinet . . . except . . .

Each of those ministers requires approval by at least 163 MPs. The same number required for Nouri to become prime minister-designate. Each of those ministers and Nouri's entire ministral program must be approved by the Parliament with a minimum of 163 votes each time. If Nouri can't nominate a cabinet in 30 days, Talabani -- per the Constitution -- is supposed to name a new prime minister-designate (new, he can't simply 'renew' his previous nominee) who would then have 30 days. But it's also true that the same procedure kicks in if Parliament does not sign off on all the ministers in 30 days or on the program Nouri proposes. Should he nominate but even one not be approved in 30 days, Talabani, per the Constitution, must name a new prime minister-designate.

Piecing together votes was highly difficult for Nouri (both last time and currently), peeling off votes generally is a lot easier than picking them up. He's Prime Minister-designate. The stalemate has not yet ended and does not until Iraq picks a prime minister. (The presidential post is ceremonial. The prime minister runs the country.)

Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) sees happy Iraqis, "This outcome has to be seen as a real letdown from the much-touted idea that the Iraqi people had voted for change in March 2010. But those hopes faded so long ago that I wonder if anyone even remembers them. After the long months of political paralysis, I suspect that most people will just be happy to have a government which can start addressing the many long-neglected issues facing Iraq." Really? BBC News gets Iraqi reaction and we'll again note, in light of Lynch's opinion, an Iraqi journalist in Mosul: "I think a lot of people who voted this time round will have hoped for a change, and will be disappointed to see the same people in charge." John Leland (New York Times) gathers reactions from around Iraq and we'll note some of those voicing objection to Nouri. Hamza Abdul Harziz in Baghdad, "In any other place, when someone wins an election, it goes to him. So why is it going to Maliki? Something strange is going on." Alos in Baghdad, Majida Sameer: "Why does Al-Maliki remain while Allawi has the legal rights to the Prime Minister position." University of Mosul professor Amjad Abdul Karim Abdullah, "America sold Iraq to Iran." History teacher Jasim Mahmood, "Today we are witnessing the birth of a dictatr in control of Iraq's government for the next 20 years." Abu al-Hasanen Ala in Basra, "I feel upset because we will face the same thing as the last four years." While Mohammed Azai of Kirkuk states, "The Americans brought these politicians. They are not representing Iraqis. If we asked the United Nations now to make free elections, Iraqis would not elect any of these politicians, not Maliki, not Allawi."

John Leland and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) quote International Crisis Group's Joost Hiltermann, "You're not going to have an effective government in Iraq anytime soon." I don't care for Paul Pillar (Georgetown and former CIA) but we'll note his take (at National Interest) on the developments: "[. . .] the reported accord demonstrates far less about what Iraqi democracy has achieved than about its continued woeful shortcomings. There is no hint of acceptance and understanding of such democratic concepts as a loyal opposition and the possibility of alternation in office. Instead, there has been the kind of apportionment of posts and power that has little to do with the popular will and more to do with distrust among politicians who see the least risk in getting everyone into a single tent, where everybody can warily watch everybody else." We'll try to tackle Chris Hill's nonsense today in tonight's "I Hate The War."

In some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left ten people injured, a second Baghdad roadside bombing left four more injured, 2 more Baghdad roadside bombing injured five people and a Baghdad sticky bombing injured one person.

In the United States, Iraq Veterans Against the War have launched Operation Recovery and this week they're doing outreach:

The Campaign Team and Chapters from across the nation are starting an effort to do regular outreach on and around military bases and universities.

The Campaign is in the popular research and base building phase. To win this struggle, hundreds of IVAW Members, Veterans, Service Members, and Allies are needed to help organize.Service Members and Veterans are in our communities and looking to be part of a community of people that understands them.

If you are a member of IVAW and want to learn more about how to get involved and do outreach click here.

Today is Veterans Day. Last week, at Truthout, Sarah Lazare reported on Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran Jeff Hanks who has self checked-out in an attempt to get treatment for his PTSD: "I am just trying to get help. My goal in this situation is to simply heal. And they wonder why there are so many suicides." Kristin M. Hall (AP) reports that Jeff plans to return to Fort Campbell today and Hall explains what happened when attempted to get treatment before self-checking out: "He returned to Fort Campbell to seek behavioral health treatment, but when he was referred for a meeting with a therapist, he said he was told by his commanders that they wanted him medically cleared to return to Afghanistan the next day. He spoke to a therapist for less than two minutes and was instructed to get marriage counseling when he came back."

Caputi immediately enlisted upon graduating from high school in 2003 but returned to the U.S. after three years without finishing his tour.

"I got out because I saw that we were just massacring people basically," he said. "Someone in my platoon shot an innocent old man who was just sitting there with prayer beads in his hands and…we bulldozed a house on top of a house that had a 10-year-old kid in it."

Caputi fought in the Second Battle of Fallujah in November of 2004, which he said was one of the worst areas of the conflict because it caused more than 1,000 civilian deaths and displaced another 200,000 Iraqis. There are no widely accepted numbers for civilian deaths, but the United States has estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of civilians had left the city before the battle began.

Fallujah was also considered a major victory for the American forces.

"In Fallujah, that was enough to show me that every justification that was given for the war was false," he said. "We were killing civilians, we were forcing them to go leave their homes and go live in the desert and we completely leveled that entire city."

He said the army used controversial weapons such as depleted uranium and white phosphorous, which may cause horrible mutations such as six fingers or three heads and huge rates of leukemia in fetuses. The Guardian has reported that there has been a large increase in birth defects after the battle.